Energy Weapons VS Ballistic Weapons

[The Black Kestrel]

In PL 6+ games I think both energy and ballistic weapons are viable. The choice to use them will be mission specific. I'd much prefer an energy weapon which has minimal or no recoil when conducting operations on a low or zero-gee enviroment. On the other hand a ballistic weapon would be much more appropiate when underwater. Admittedly these are extremes of the enviromental spectrum and wouldn't be the only factors in a decision to use ballistic or energy weapons. Questions of mass, shot capacity, logistics (find more bullets or an energy source), maintenance, cost, payload capabilities etc will drive the decision as much as anything else.

Application is another area where ballistic or energy weapons could dominate. Consider for a moment anti-missile/artillery/mortar systems. While there are ballistic (SKYGUARD, ARROW etc.) systems designed to counter the threat currently, energy weapons with their inherently superior speed (accuracy is variable based on atmospheric conditions) could possible be a better choice especially if they guard a fixed site where power is plentiful and maintenance regular.

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

Energy weapons have a few advantages over ballistic weapons.

Time to target is effectively zero, making them impossible to intercept (other than with armor).

Aiming is trivial -- no windage, no gravity, and you can adjust aim until the target goes boom. Even in modern firearms, recoil does have an impact, which is why sniper rifles are designed with floating barrels.

Assuming infinite power (which is a HUGE assumption), you will never run out of ammunition.

"Energy" is a broad term that can apply to a variety of effects -- sonics for disabling foes, masers that fry circuitry and burn, particle accelerators -- and those are just the ones that actually exist. Sci-fi has the afore-mentioned meson guns, disintegrators, antimatter rifles, etc. Flexibility could be an advantage if a single weapon can have multiple effects -- but you could also argue that the capability already exists with shotguns and grenade launchers.

If power is infinite and electronics are dirt cheap, then I could see ballistics going away, but that is really the only way.

 

[Captain Tagon]

I still hold to the ORIGINAL post of this thread: That a high tech military would not abandon ballistic weapons for solely energy weapons.

And I will agree with you 100% there.

 

[Morgan Keyes]

New poster

DreadPrivateMurphy hit upon many points I am using in a D20 Modern/Future setting I am working on based on the X-COM games.

Ballistic weapons still play a major role since there is no overwhelming evidence that at the small arms scale directed energy will have a major leg-up over a high velocity slug of metal.

The X-COM (-esque) small arms in the opening stages will be:

-Conventional propellants like we see today.

-Electro-thermal propellant weapons.

-Energy weapons in the form of laser small arms.

Now in this situation, the laser weapons not the kind found in D20 Future (which, IMO, in the end is flawed product). As I am looking to present it, a rifle-scale laser weapon is going to have damage comparable to a 7.62mm NATO round (2d10), somewhat better range increment (100' to 120')(no drop, windage, or real time-of-flight to worry about and thus the real strength over conventional slug throwers), and a (slightly) higher ammo capacity. Thus, they'll have advantages but nothing like the broken stats given in D20 Future, and I believe it to be a more reasonable representation.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm with Captain Tagon & Warlord Ralts...

If you're patient and have good targeting, for most tech levels there's probably no WMD than a diverted asteroid. Cheap, plentiful and potentially civilization ending... each impact potentially an ELE (extinction level event).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Energy weapons have a few advantages over ballistic weapons.

Time to target is effectively zero, making them impossible to intercept (other than with armor).

Though for normal ballistic weapons against human targets, that isn't that much different.

Aiming is trivial -- no windage, no gravity, and you can adjust aim until the target goes boom. Even in modern firearms, recoil does have an impact, which is why sniper rifles are designed with floating barrels.

Though this also depends on how long it takes between pulling the trigger and the gun firing - it is possible that a energy weapon will need some kind of (high capacity) capacitor to "charge" the weapon before it can fire...

Assuming infinite power (which is a HUGE assumption), you will never run out of ammunition.

The assumption that in the future we can just teleport our ammunition from the bullet production facility might be similar huge

 

[Rhun]

Any one see Star Trek: First contact? Where picard uses a holographic tommy gun to blow away two borg who had adapted to his phaser?
I think the federation should get the idea and start issuing projectile weapons to ships expected to encounter borg. Then again the borg might just start being kevlar plated.

Actually, they did:

By the 24th century, projectile and ballistic weapons are rarely used in combat. Despite this, Starfleet Security developed the TR-116 projectile rifle, a prototype designed to operate in energy dampening fields and radiogenic environments The device was also designed for use against the Borg, who could adapt their personal shields to any energy weapon fired at them. The TR-116 fired a chemically-propelled tritanium bullet but was never mass-produced as Starfleet Command preferred regenerative phasers.

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

Though for normal ballistic weapons against human targets, that isn't that much different.

Though this also depends on how long it takes between pulling the trigger and the gun firing - it is possible that a energy weapon will need some kind of (high capacity) capacitor to "charge" the weapon before it can fire...

The assumption that in the future we can just teleport our ammunition from the bullet production facility might be similar huge

Ah, you're making certain assumptions.

If you have an active personal defense system, e.g., robotic shield drones, or a force field that only comes on when it detects a threat, then energy weapons would still beat ballistics.

As for pulling the trigger -- any weapon that had an inherent delay between trigger pull and actual discharge would be of limited utility. You might need capacitors, but they would be charged prior to pulling the trigger, like with the Air Force's airborne laser cannon.

If you can teleport ammunition, you could also teleport an energy feed (or just broadcast it). You could also teleport a hydrogen bomb into the middle of the enemy encampment.

 

[Roudi]

If you can teleport ammunition, you could also teleport an energy feed (or just broadcast it).

As far as Nikolai Tesla was concerned, you could broadcast power.

 

[hobgoblin]

You could also teleport a hydrogen bomb into the middle of the enemy encampment.

unless the enemy have teleport blocking technology...

for each offense there is atleast 1 defense and so on...

personaly i would go for some sort of combo gun.
one that had both the ability to fire of beams of energy, but could allso fire bits of flying matter when needed.

hell, given that matter=energy and so on, one could in theory build a gun based on replicator tech that could fire both energy and matter